Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (40819)	8/29/2002 6:07:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>Al-Hayat: Syria and the threat against Iraq, the region Syria-Iraq, Politics, 8/29/2002 Diplomatic sources told the London- based al-Hayat daily issued on Wednesday that Syria seeks to talk with the Iraqis in order to prevent the chance from those who want to launch an attack against Iraq, and for Iraq not to behave in a way that would contribute to giving a cover a likely military operation, besides that the Iraqi regime should not to provoke any Arab state sympathizing with Baghdad and rejecting a military act. The paper added that Damascus sees that the wing which supports Israel, or say the Israeli wing in the administration of the US President George Bush, seeks to convince the American administration to "liquidate calculations in the Middle East" including the possibility of attacking Hizbullah and striking the Syrian infrastructure, on behalf of Israel "wether making this a target prior to striking Iraq or a goal that the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon will fulfil investing the war on Iraq." This however explained the statement made on Tuesday by the Syrian army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Hassan Turkmani to draw an Arab strategy to withstand challenges by maintaining an effective Arab solidarity. The paper said that the Syrian leadership is working to benefit from the fact she is the only side that has good relations with Iraq and the Gulf states, altogether in order to bring about view points between Baghdad and Saudi Arabia in order to establish an Arab solidarity so as to withstand tremendous expected onslaughts in the coming phase. These two elements, however, were behind the visit made by Present Bashar al-Assad to Saudi Arabia and his talks there with its officials. A high ranking Syrian officials told al-Hayat that al-Assad's visit to Saudi Arabia aimed at conforming Arab solidarity and Syria's support for the Saudi position in the face of the American pressures, seeking to enhance inter- Arab solidarity as a basic element to confront challenges facing the Arabs especially rejecting threats against Iraq.<< arabicnews.com Hee-hee.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (40819)	8/29/2002 7:35:36 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Thank you, Carl. Now, what is the lead time for mobilizing reserves?" The time that is of interest is the lead time between mobilizing the reserves and going to war. In the case of major conflicts, such as the first gulf war, the reserves were mobilized in August 1990, but the war didn't start until early the next year. I would expect another war in Iraq (which is impossible for diplomatic and military considerations) to be timed about the same way. If the military had been told by the Administration that "we are going into Iraq in November", the following things would happen: (1) The news would be told to thousands of people. (2) The news would leak all over the place. (3) The military would be calling up reservists left and right, especially in the face of US manpower now in Afghanistan. (4) You wouldn't be reading about this in Stratfor, Debka, or Asia Times. You'd be reading about it in the regular press. And not at the level you're seeing it now. The press would be interviewing soldiers being called to the front, babies would be photographed being kissed, lovers would be crying at the loading docks. In short, the shit would have hit the fan. But the situation instead is no shit, no fan, just the usual, long running, unsubstantiated rumors of war. Exaggerations of routine military exercises and restocking. Nothing that hasn't been going on monthly for decades, but that no one ever took notice of. War is very easy to recognize if you just take off the rose colored glasses. Think back to news reports in preparation for action in Afghanistan. How can you really compare that to the current situation? The fact is that nothing, absolutely nothing, is going on, except the Bush administration talked themselves up a creek. They have no war plans. They have no allies. All they have is war talk, and only people wearing high presecription rose (blood) colored glasses see what is going on as a preparation for warfare. That the demobilization of the reserves is happening now is likely related to the fact that a lot of their 270 day services are coming due. But in times of "declared war or national emergency", such as did happen in the Gulf War, congress can extend this time. I don't recall seeing an extension of the 270 day time for the battle against terrorism, which is likely why we're seeing the numbers go down so quickly. If there was a national emergency, like our last war with Iraq, the reservists would be finding themselves extended. Instead, they're finding themselves back in civilian clothes, as my numbers indicate. What the hell do you think is going to happen, that they're going to be called up again in a few weeks? Here, more than you ever wanted to know about the reserves: defenselink.mil carlisle-www.army.mil So why hasn't Bush extended duty for the Reserves? Oh, the war with Iraq is over now and the Reserves can come home? -- Carl